On Jun 8, 11:33 am, Aaron Grewell <aaron.grew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look at what I tried to do you'll realize that's not the case. I
> understand what you're saying, but the issue is one of Puppet not supporting
> its own 'syntactic sugar' consistently. I created an array (this is not a
> convenience for a large number of machines, it's a requirement) but since
> it's an array of hashes rather than an array of strings it doesn't work
> right.
Correction: it doesn't work the way you wish it would. Perhaps it
defies your intuition, but that doesn't make it wrong. I concur with
Brian that you seem to be thinking about Puppet DSL in declarative
terms, and that that really doesn't work.
There are a lot variations on that theme, but perhaps you're running
into this one: Puppet defined types are not analogous to C macros;
rather they are bona fide resource types implemented via Puppet DSL.
People typically hit that from a different angle, but it smacks of the
same thinking that you even consider using a hash as a resource title,
much less expect the $name variable inside the definition body to
refer to the actual object presented as the title of an instance.
Here are some other things you need to know:
The $name variable in a definition body contains the title of an
instance of the definition. It is a string, by definition.
Whatever object is presented as a resource title is converted to a
string or to an array of strings, to yield one or more resource
titles. If the object is neither a string nor an array of strings
then the result will probably not be what you wanted, but it is
entirely consistent.
> That's a bug, plain and simple. There's no point in having hashes
> if we can't use defines or virtuals with them without breakage.
It seems a little hasty to call "bug" and declare "breakage" over a
feature you wish Puppet had. Especially so when that feature would be
inconsistent with the rest of Puppet. I do agree that Puppet hashes
are less useful than someone with a background in, say, Perl might
expect. I never use them myself, but some find them useful.
As for having to use an array, much less an array of hashes, how does
that benefit your example manifest over this:
define usertest ($uid) {
user { "$name":
ensure => present,
uid => $uid
}
}
@usertest {
"bill": uid => "12345";
"ted": uid => "12346";
}
realize Usertest[bill]
That's both cleaner and less verbose than your version, and it scales
just as well with the number of users. In particular, compare your
initialization of $users with the @usertest declarations in my
version. Also, mine will work (modulo any typos that may have crept
in). I use something much like it myself.
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
